Quote:
Originally Posted by IndYeah
I will forgive you for your needless personal attack. Since you have such a lovely signature. 
Ben Stokes is a very useful test cricketer. He is a proven batsman who can bowl a good chunk of overs and has the happy knack of picking up wickets infrequently. A team with a player like Stokes will always find it easy to be competitive in test cricket - because a player of his type makes the bowling line-up better than the sum of its parts, without weakening the batting.
Now to Pandya - he has done nothing in test cricket yet. And so far, his batting, while very useful at #7 in LOI cricket, has shown enough techical chinks to need a lot of work before he can be effective in test cricket.
Sure he shows a lot of promise, and nobody's saying that he should restrict his "target". Point is, that even if does worse than Stokes, he can still be a value-add for the Indian test team.
|
My needless attack was a direct response to yours 'Seems like this guy doesn't quite understand'.
Not being able to match Stokes doesn't make him a poor man's version of it, he can be on a similar level without being a poor man's version of something, let me put it in Indian terms, Kohli is no Sachin, but he's not a poor man's Sachin, he's a great player, just not Sachin, Pandya doesn't have to be as good as Stokes, but he can still be a decent player
A poor man's Stokes in my opinion is not good enough for test cricket especially not for India